29 July 2013 1:41 PM

Monarchy and Liberty Part 1 - the Threat to the Crown

I take as my text for today Mr Peter Charnley’s accusation that I have sounded ‘a ridiculous klaxon of ill-timed negativity. A negativity based upon assumptions which are blatantly false.’

Wasn’t it Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew who railed against the ‘nattering nabobs of negativism’? Well, look what happened to him. What is this alleged ‘negativity’? What is the ‘positivity’ to which it is opposed? Who precisely decides which is which? And how does he decide? The truth is there is no such thing in a free country. Only despots require everyone to be ‘positive’ and cheerful all the time. This guff reminds me of the happy wake-up music they used to play at breakfast-time in Soviet hotels, just to ensure everyone was cheerful about the coming day in Utopia (and to help pick out those who were not sufficiently positive).

Mr Charnley is another of those people who seems to think that disagreeing with him is some sort of misdeed. Here and on Twitter, I repeatedly encounter people who denounce what I have said as wicked or wrong, or claim to have been ‘offended’ by it. Or they go on and on about how gloomy and miserable I am , completely failing to see that private happiness and unhappiness have little to do with critical discontent at the general state of affairs in this country. I don’t regard it as the job of the government, the BBC or the EU to make me happy. And, like most Englishmen of my generation, I am quite capable of enjoying myself in a number of apparently very sombre ways. Few things give me more pleasure than a really gloomy Remembrance Day parade in the drizzle. I believe quite a lot of people have fun watching their local or national sporting teams ground into the mud by their opponents.

This attitude - that dissent is in some way bad, sad or offensive - is just silly. A free, thoughtful person is not threatened or wounded by the expression of a contrary opinion. He is not made sad by another’s discontent. He is either able to rebut it, or provoked by it into thought, and changes his mind. The expression of an opinion (in itself) can never be wrong. The limits of speech lie at the borders of incitement to violence or crime, and nowhere else.

On the other hand it can be actively dispiriting to engage in debate with people who just don’t know how to argue, and lack the logical skills and generosity to rebut or accept a point of argument. Generally they become personally unpleasant at some point or other. I imagine it is much the same for a chess grandmaster, playing against unskilled opponents who angrily turn the board over when they lose, rather than trying to work out why and how they lost.

But it is much easier to argue properly than it is to play chess. All one needs is the relevant facts, as clearly referenced as possible, and the logical consequences of them.

So, to the Monarchy. Perhaps Mr Charnley would like to tell me which bits of what follows are 'blatantly false'.

Apart from Mr Charnley, there were a number of other interesting if unproductive responses. Two groups particularly struck me. The first expressed incredulity that anyone could believe that the Queen was divinely appointed. A number also confused this with the constitutional theory of the Divine Right of Kings, which has not been current for 450 years, and is, as Charles I might have said, ‘ a clean different thing’.

The Christian believer (as we have discussed ad infinitum elsewhere) attributes the workings of the universe to Divine Providence, rather than to accident. From this flows a belief that, if a person is born into the succession to a throne, and actually succeeds, this is the consequence of Divine Providence. Theories as to how pervasive this Providence is, and how it can or cannot be frustrated by human will, vary. A Calvinist friend of mine jokes (though actually he is being quite serious) about the Calvinist preacher who falls down a flight of stairs and is badly bruised. He gets up, dusts himself down and says ‘ Well, I’m glad that’s over’.

There were certainly quite a few people who believed well into the late 18th century that the heirs to the Stuart line were the rightful Kings of England, and the Hanoverians usurpers.

But, more importantly for this argument, this belief in the monarch being divinely chosen was very common within living memory. As Brian Groom wrote in the Financial Times of 1st June 2012, ‘This was a deferential, conservative society in which 35 per cent of people thought the Queen had been directly chosen by God, according to an opinion poll in 1956.’

Read that again carefully. In 1956, 57 years ago, 35% of adults held a view of God and Monarchy which is plainly astonishing to several of my contributors, and which nobody (except me) is prepared to explain or defend.

Yet many other contributors, and several critics on Twitter excoriated me for my prediction that, 70 years from now, the monarchy would have gone because its last remaining foundation – popularity – would have gone too. One even claimed I had said the monarch would ‘soon’ be gone. I suggested that if she thought 70 years hence was soon, she must work for the railways.

In fewer than 60 years, a widespread belief that the Monarch is chosen by God (35% in 1956, probably closer to 90% in 1914 if anyone had asked) has almost entirely disappeared and is viewed with shock and incomprehension. I do not have the impression that the pace of change in this country has slowed down recently. How, in that case, is it unreasonable to speculate that public support for monarchy (fickle even now) will have vanished by 2083? And, given that so many people have been complacently writing articles saying that the succession is now settled for generations to come, why is this the wrong time to raise this doubt?

I was also accused of being 'offensive’ or some such, for pointing out ‘The Tories, who pretend to be monarchists, would cheerfully guillotine the Queen or Prince Charles if they thought it would help them stay in office. They prove each week that there is nothing they won’t swallow, with this aim in mind.’

Well? On the vital issue of the hereditary peerage, the Tories buckled under New Labour pressure, and refused to defend the hereditary principle (I will explain later why they should have done. The important thing is that, faced with a chance to argue for the very principle on which monarchy is based, they ran away as fast as their little legs could carry them) . Yes, they ‘saved’ a rump of 92 hereditaries, but this was a sop granted to achieve the greater aim of ending the hereditary House of Lords for good. The Lords is now in a transitional state (much as Northern Ireland is), crammed with party appointees, and I regard it as virtually certain that it will be replaced by an elected Senate in the next 10 years or so. This will make it more obvious that the monarchy is now the only part of our constitution governed by inheritance, and that Parliament and the Tory party have rejected such a principle.

For further evidence of Tory unreliability on matters of tradition and patriotism, let us recall: The Tory destruction of the armed forces, both now and during the Macmillan and Thatcher eras; The Tory support for the surrender to the IRA, preceded by their willingness to talk secretlyto that body; the Tory failure to argue on principle for Unionism in Scotland or Wales; the Tory role on joining the Common Market, in joining the Single Market and signing the Maastricht Treaty; the Tory failure to replace the Royal Yacht Britannia as 1997 approached, thus making it easy for the Alastair Campbell government to scrap her, and their subsequent failure to take any serious steps to get a replacement; the Tory attack on the pillars of the British constitution, and the Tory collaboration with New Labour’s similar attack. This has gravely weakened jury trial, abolished the right to silence, done heavy damage to Habeas Corpus through detention without trial, came close to the introduction of Identity Cards .

The Tory failure to reverse or modify the chief measures of the Jenkins cultural revolution, especially no-fault divorce, the evisceration of the criminal justice system , the nationalisation of the police and the abolition of preventive policing, and the state attack on fatherhood; the Tory collaboration with (and failure to reverse) the destruction of the grammar schools. I might add the frequent Tory flirtation with the Murdoch press empire, which is , at the least, cool towards the monarchy. And, on the point of tradition and history, the Tory abolition, in 1974 of the beloved English counties. If I were the Windsors, I wouldn’t rely on them for a moment.

Actually, if I were Fred Bloggs in a back street in Derby, I wouldn’t rely on them for a moment. Past behaviour is the best guide you’ll ever get to future performance.

Labour are doggedly republican but have more sense than to say so just now. Retired Labour politicans tend to be franker than serving ones. They discussed the matter once at their London conference in 1923, and ( I looked up the minutes and am trying to trace the ‘Spectator’ article which I wrote as a result some years ago), George Lansbury told the delegates in the Queen’s Hall that he agreed with them that the monarchy should go at some point, but that this was not the right time. Labour was then seeking respectability as a national party, and its inbuilt republicanism would have been a handicap to its further growth, and its ability to supplant the Liberals. I have good reason to believe that the usual metropolitan scorn for monarchy is equally rife in the Liberal Democrats.

These bourgeois bohemians think it so advanced, grown-up and intelligent to be republicans. Poor dears, they have rarely thought about it. As usual, their views are formed by fashion and conformism. In Part Two, I shall explain the sound arguments for keeping the Crown.

"The Christian believer (as we have discussed ad infinitum elsewhere) attributes the workings of the universe to Divine Providence, rather than to accident. From this flows a belief that, if a person is born into the succession to a throne, and actually succeeds, this is the consequence of Divine Providence."
This assertion is on rather shaky ground. To what extent God intervenes in man's affairs (part of the workings of the universe) has been disputed for as long as philosophers and theologians have debated subjects such as Providence, Free Will, Fate and Destiny. Since the Queen can currently trace her succession back to Alfred the Great - are you suggesting that some event controlled by a deity propelled Alfred to become King of England and because of that event the Queen born into succession to the throne is divinely appointed? Is the same Divine Providence at work for other Royal Families around the world such as those in Sweden and the Netherlands? When Royal families are abolished what part does Divine Providence play in that? Your statement that the queen is divinely appointed raises intriguing questions Mr Hitchens, which is probably why myself and others reacted with incredulity at it.

Excellent post, Mr.Bugle. I, too, long for the old days when any problem could be solved by a visit to my local hereditary peer. Well, I had to cross the Severn Bridge, but it was well worth it.

I still recall those long, languorous, liquid lunches, lying on the lawns of Longleat, laughing at Labour: God, how we laughed. Occasionally, one or two of his wifelets would drop by and join in the fun. He's had over seventy of them. Then, we'd discuss how he was appointed by God to his important legislative position and how the left is, as you say, undermining the family and making it difficult to bring up children virtuously. I did sometimes josh him, though, and say that he was skating on very thynn ice there. Geddit?

I am sorry if I have fallen foul of Mr Hitchens with my remark about 'ill-timed negativity'. But I do stand by it. I shall have to try and add a little perspective. Firstly my comments began with a stated appreciation of the useful and constructive criticism that is usually to be found on this blog about the society in which we presently live - and secondly, the ridiculous klaxon of negativity I referred to was not solely about the Royal birth.

Mr Hitchens had quite categorically stated that 'hardly anyone believes in the Christian God anymore'. I had read Mr Hitchens words at about noon on a Sunday when, less than two hours earlier, I had been praying, listening to a sermon and singing hymns (not to mention ringing the bells) in an Anglican church which had an attendance of over two hundred people in it. Ten to fifteen years earlier there would have been barely fifty.

That one church, not to mention the online input of people from around the UK and , indeed the world, demonstrates that Mr Hitchens statement is blatant nonsense from that perspective. A perspective I, admittedly, did not make clear.

But even focusing upon Royalty. I do indeed believe what I read in the MOS was an ill-timed klaxon of negativity. Many may indeed share Peter Hitchens concerns about the future of British Royalty in varying degrees (I happen to be far more optimistic). But to provide a headline and message of 'dust and ashes' over a picture of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge emerging with their newly born child, within a week of his birth, demonstrates that, although Mr Hitchens may indeed be a far more learned man than myself , wisdom as to what is said, when, how and in what context, may influence people's sympathies and the subsequent attention others give to his legitimate warnings or sour grumblings - however it is people rightly or wrongly classify them - well, that wisdom was totally absent.

I can only speculate, but I am sure that the hearts of many of his sympathisers and supporters (of which I am one) would have sunk when they opened their paper on Sunday, 28th July. Not for their future King George, but for the credibility of an important voice in journalism.

@ Mr Godfrey.
The funny thing about the hereditary principle .It worked .At least during what could be described as our heyday. During our Empire days the aristoracy encouraged a selflessness in their offspring. Many paid vast sums to enter politics and the Army. Today alas the offspring are anything but, with rare exceptions.
One has being realistic, to work with what ones got. We have a bad hand dealt our choices are poor.
So as the hereditary principal cannot, in your words be defended, says a lot more than you perhaps realise

PH appears to be lamenting the fact that most of us no longer believe the monarch was chosen by God.

There's a reason for this. It's a quite unsupportable position. The very notion of god 'choosing' someone is clearly, manifestly a human projection. Is PH's god the kind that sits around 'choosing'? It's simply too preposteros.

And if it were in some way 'true', given the long list of half-wits, monsters, philanderers and numbskulls that have inhabited the royal family over the last thousand years, it doesn't say a great deal for god's judgement. Stick him in charge of an HR dept and he wouldn't last a month.

The man responsible for sowing the seeds of the American Revolution and their 'sacking' of the last Monarch - King George III was Prime Minister for less than one year between 1762 and 1763, it was : The Marquis of Bute, he taught the King all he needed to know about whipping the Americans up into a fury.

As an American living in the UK, I have no vote in the matter, but do you mind if I add a few cents?

As an American of course I am republican in the sense that I do not wish to be a citizen of a monarchy. Add the fact that where I grew up half of the people were descendent of the Irish that only reinforced it. (I have been to weddings where the groom’s old uncles and aunts start singing Irish struggle songs). So I came here to the UK thinking the Queen was a quaint anachronism with not purpose soon to be swept away.

Yet living here now for 4 years I must admit I have changed my mind. I still do not wish there to be a hereditary monarch in America but the UK is not America. If I were starting a country from scratch I would not have a monarch, but the UK is not starting from scratch, is it? It is an organism that has grown and changed over 1500 years. I recognise that the institution serves an important purpose. The institution ties the British of today to your history, good and bad. The Queen’s Speech acts as a living pageant of British constitutional history. I have grown to appreciate the idea of having a group of non-political persons who can do the ceremonial aspects of nationhood. And the Queen in many ways acts as the ultimate check on threats to liberty

I do agree with Mr. Hitches though that at some point, it will disappear. Like the EU, there are too many important people who want to see it gone, no matter what the people here want. And I agree with some of the commentators that the issue is not the working class Labourites (what is left of that class) but rather the upper middle class radicals that are now our new ruling class.

But until then, I toast the newest Windsor and say the Queen and Liberty – long may they reign.

When the Lords were abolished by the Wicked Blair Tyranny it was incomprehensible to me why no politician or party or peer was prepared to argue for the hereditary principle.

The hereditary peers just went home without a whimper.
I now think that the reason might have been that as they were appointed by God to give their service to the nation, when they were no longer wanted by the nation (it appeared) and not being self-seeking, they must have felt as if they had been removed by God.

The harm that their removal has done to the ordinary people of this country is irreversible and very bad. It increases the power of the liberal 'elite' at the expense of the mass of people, reduces their freedom, security of property (however small their property is) and their liberty under the law.

It has undermined the family, the freedom of people to bring up their children virtuously and to do their best for their family.

It has disconnected the regions from the say in central power that their local hereditary peer gave them, and put them further in thrall to the kind of 'democracy' that is no democracy at all - the election of an MP chosen by a political party's central diktat, who has no interest but his own power and is subject to trying to please the 'media' for his re-election.

There is a host of other reasons. But I agree with everything you say about this and weep for the future.

I honestly cannot comprehend how the hereditary principle can be defended, all it does is support the historic claim of one bunch of blood drenched loons over another, hundreds of years ago, and renders us not citizens but subjects, a far less just situation, forever bound to allegiance to an inbred royal house. (Who are German, thus if the logic Mr Hitchens applies to the EU was used would mean that we where ruled from Berlin and this should be opposed with nuclear force, as the headline for his trident column implied.)

But due to the Royal Cult (oh sorry the Anglican Church) he has been brain washed into believing that liberty is to be found in abject submission to the twin tyrannies of Christ and Crown.

I have always felt that the existence of an heriditary monarchy has had a positive effect, the division of state has prevented a dictator coming to power and the island of Ireland still bears theThe Queen's visit to Ireland in May 2011 helped symbolically heal historical animosities in a way no other Britsh figure could. emotional scars from Cromwell's rule which we are still recovering from today.

Working class people be they on the right or moderate left like myself have less of a problem with the monarchy than the elite urban political classes who probably secretly see them as a barrier to their own naked ambition.

The Marching season is upon us here in Northern Ireland and the Orange parades are in full swing. George Orwell when speaking of the monarchy once said "modern people can’t, apparently, get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship onto some figure who has no real power". How true and what peril it would bring to Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole if such people were marching to the drum of another Cromwell rather than the unifying banner of Elizabeth I and the monarchy.

'This attitude -that dissent is in some way bad, sad or offensive - is just silly. A free, thoughtful person is not threatened or wounded by the expression of a contrary opinion. He is not made sad by another’s discontent. He is either able to rebut it, or provoked by it into thought, and changes his mind. The expression of an opinion (in itself) can never be wrong. The limits of speech lie at the borders of incitement to violence or crime, and nowhere else.'

And,

'These bourgeois bohemians think it so advanced, grown-up and intelligent to be republicans... they have rarely thought about it. As usual, their views are formed by fashion and conformism.'

is so true. So many people seek to attack those who do not share the same opinions as them while at the same time trying to appear broad-minded, multicultural and 'liberal' - as long as their opinions are not challenged by those who have different opinions from them. When they are, their 'liberalness' quickly shows itself to be what it really is - dictatorialism in all its ugliness.

I know exactly the kind of bourgeois bohemians you write about here and elsewhere. I live in a district where there are many of them, unfortunately. It is true to say they really do not think about their opinions but merely follow what is deemed fashionable at the moment. They are too stupid to realize that what they think is cool and 'liberal' is really the most sheep-like narrow mindedness and sickening conformity.

Another good rebuttal to some of the twits on Twitter who are there to deliberately waste your time. I'm sure they hope that if enough of them go on the attack it will shut you up. But keep on going as many people do agree with your opinions and enjoy reading your column.

A little explanation for the incredulous: He who believes in Divine Providence will assume the Monarch to be divinely chosen. He will think the same about the dustman.

The Atheistic democrat, on the other hand, sees something superior in the will of the majority. The efficacy of this view being demonstrated in Mr Cameron's clearly being the most suitable person in Britain to hold his exalted position.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.